Apple's Arbitrary Review Process Now Being Used To Stop Competing Pebble Smart Watch
from the lame dept
For many years now, we've been highlighting how Apple appears to arbitrarily ban apps with little to no explanation, even though quite frequently, it appears to be because they are competitive with Apple products.We haven't heard as much about that lately, leading to at least some hope that perhaps Apple has been opening up and allowing more apps. It's still a walled garden, which is ridiculous, but we'd hoped that the gate was relatively open. So it seems odd to find out that not only has Apple been refusing to allow Pebble's new iOS app, but it appears to be sitting on it for an extended period of time with no explanation (one version has been waiting for 43 days, another version, where "expedited review" was requested has been sitting for a few weeks).
Pebble, of course, is the maker of the first really popular smartwatch, and they're just starting to ship the second generation of that watch after a super successful Kickstarter campaign. As Pebble notes in the email that it sent around to backers, the last time it requested "expedited review" Apple approved that app in 24 hours. Of course, there's a big difference between the last time and this time: now the Apple Watch is on the market, meaning that Apple has a competitor in the marketplace, giving it incentives not to help out Pebble.
Obviously, there's no direct evidence that Apple is purposely blocking Pebble's app because it competes with the Apple Watch, but it does seem notable that the approval went through so much faster prior to Apple entering the space. And, even if that's not why Apple is blocking approval, just the fact that the company has a secretive, non-transparent, arbitrary approval process, at the very least, allows for the appearance of trying to block a competitor.
Update And... of course, just as this post is going out, it comes out that Apple has now finally approved the app, with Pebble claiming that the public pressure from it releasing its story helped push the app across the finish line.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: app store, apple watch, arbitrary, pebble, pebble time
Companies: apple, pebble
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's also worth noting some of the ridiculous conditions in Apple's review guidelines:
"...we have a Review Board that you can appeal to. If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps."
In this case it seemed to work for Pebble, but I wonder how developers who aren't as well known would fare.
https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Well except..
Techdirt is a fantastic site except when it comes to reporting on Apple - there is a decided bias and the usual well researched stories go for OMG APPLE BAD EVIL which is a shame.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well except..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Well except..
The delay on the new app is still within the normal approval range from what I've read elsewhere. No excuse on the first app, the review process is far too opaque and arbitrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well except..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Well except..
The update for the original app was in review for 43 days yesterday.
After the first submission of the Pebble Time app which had been approved on the 18th, they had to submit an update for minor fixes. That update had been in expedited review since the 22nd of last month.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A little bit of transparency goes a long way
Apple's insistence on ignoring this notion and the air of pretense between the company and its more ignorant customers presents an implication that Apple feels it is too good to respect the public's interest in oversight.
This is not unique to Apple. Pretty much any company that markets itself as upscale technology does this. Sony, for example.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Pebble is Amazing
I laugh when I hear about people having to charge their Apple watches twice a day! Oh, boo hoo, Apple!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Techdirters accuracy is improving!
One of the noobs flames Techdirt for being anti-Apple! Ridiculous. Hinting that Apple's review process is self-serving is far as Techdirt ever goes. Never a hint about the Chinese workers locked into factories with suicide nets, the obscene prices for status symbols, or the illegal way Apple keeps profits offshore untaxed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Techdirters accuracy is improving!
Plus, how many of those things also happen with competitors? You're not stupid enough to believe that the only Chinese factories with such issues are the ones contracted by Apple (or that those factories only make stuff for Apple) or that only Apple use the tax laws to their advantage are you? As for the prices - so what? If people are willing to pay them, and are happy with their purchase, who gives a crap if you think they're too high?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's worse than that
[ link to this | view in chronology ]